A new Trump doctrine is beginning to take shape, most notably in the realm of foreign policy. This emerging doctrine is characterized by a transactional approach, particularly regarding warfare involving the United States. It emphasizes financialization, reducing politics to cost analysis, returns, and maximizing outcomes. This doctrine views conflicts and financial aid that fail to yield tangible benefits for the U.S. as ineffective. It outrightly dismisses the concept of "soft power" due to its perceived high costs and uncertain advantages.
The doctrine is channeled through former President Donald Trump, who perceives conflicts as inescapable quagmires and financial aid as a strategy to recoup funds. This approach is marked by impulsive and narcissistic tendencies, not necessarily echoed by his advisors. The Trump doctrine is being shaped by a blend of political strands and interests that support and counsel him. European nations are now regarded as junior partners, expected either to join Trump in resolving conflicts or manage the aftermath when the U.S. retracts support.
This doctrine is currently being implemented in regions such as Ukraine and Gaza, where the U.S. seeks to recover its investments and secure a return. The United States collaborates with emerging centers of intermediary power in the Middle East to enforce its doctrine. However, this approach faces resistance from European leaders grappling with adapting to this new world order. Former close allies and security partners of the U.S. are now confronted with the choice of abandoning European solidarity notions and accepting defense vulnerabilities and political subordination.
The Trump doctrine is marked by a focus on short-term gains with little regard for long-term consequences. While the specific features of this doctrine may evolve over time, its core principles of transactionalism and financialization are likely to endure.
In Ukraine, the Trump administration's approach has been evident in seeking to ensure that U.S. financial assistance aligns with strategic benefits. The administration perceives military aid as an investment requiring measurable returns, thereby prioritizing direct economic and security interests over broader geopolitical stability. Similarly, in Gaza, the U.S. has adopted a stance where financial aid is contingent upon achieving specific outcomes favorable to American interests.
The doctrine's emphasis on cost-benefit analysis has led to a re-evaluation of international alliances and partnerships. European nations, once considered close allies, are now viewed through a transactional lens. This shift has prompted discomfort among European leaders who find themselves navigating a new reality where U.S. support is not guaranteed.
"I understand people are bending over backwards to try to mitigate some of the fallout from these statements that are made," – Democratic senator Andy Kim
Middle Eastern nations, acting as new centers of power, have emerged as key players in implementing the Trump doctrine. These countries serve as intermediaries in negotiations, facilitating deals that align with U.S. interests while also securing their own strategic gains.
Despite resistance from traditional allies, the Trump doctrine continues to be a driving force in reshaping global dynamics. The emphasis on transactionalism challenges longstanding diplomatic norms, compelling nations to reassess their strategies in dealing with the U.S.
"I just don’t know what to think about when it comes to our national security." – Democratic senator Andy Kim